Rating: 
Summary: As stupid man interviewing a lot of stupid people
Review: This has to be by far the most unintelligent "documentary" I have ever watched. Even more stupid then Moore's little points are the stupid people he interviews to make these points. Comparing the NRA to the Klu Klux Klan? Talking about the Smog in LA, and comparing that to gun violence? All his points can be summed up into one small sentence. Americans have more gun violence because we have the right to bear arms". Period. Save your time and don't watch this film. If you are of below average intelligence and want to watch other stupid people make really stupid points which Moore edited together to make this really stupid film, by all means waste a couple brains cells and watch this crappy film.
Rating:
Summary: THE LEFTS' "TRIMUPH OF THE WILL."
Review: Michael Moore like Leni Riefensthal creates a propagandist's "documentary," where truth is not as important as is the message to the faithful. His faithful are those who would abdicate their rights to a government and who would make decisions based on raw emotion. To these neo-brownshirts truth is an inconvenience. Like Triumph of the Will, the images can be alluring but we must stand guard against any untruth.
Rating:
Summary: Crap and the stupid liberals that buy into it
Review: I am one of those life members of the NRA some of you are talking about. I'm also a life member of the Texas State Rifle Association. I've never broken a law. I am a member of a pistol and rifle club and I know those people well. They are not crazy criminals either. Would you like Michael Moore to make a documentary that twisted the truth and lied about something you love? Don't focus your evidence to state your case on fringe groups and radicals just to envoke emotion, by using that logic you would be able to state that anyone who rides a motorcycle is a drugged out member of a radical motorcycle gang and therefore all motorcycles should be banned to stop the spread of violence and crime that these gangs have been attributed with doing. Should we ban cars because some people drink and drive and kill people? Just because you enjoy having the right to own the gun you want does not make you a crazy criminal. I have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds over the years and I have never ever gone on a killing rampage nor have I ever had the desire to do so. The NRA is not some evil empire. It is a political action group that was formed to protect our rights from people who, because they think they know best, would like to limit what I can and can not purchase and own. Check out www.clintongunban.com to get the truth. The NRA wouldn't have power unless they had members and it looks like they have a lot of members. When you talk about taking power away from the NRA, you are saying you want to take mine and many others voices away in politics. I bet you wouldn't like it if someone made a movie and lied about the ACLU (although they wouldn't have to lie about those nuts) just to try and destroy them. I own lots and lots of guns and even more ammo. I've left my guns unlocked many, many times and guess what? They never jumped up and loaded themselves and shot someone. Those kids in Columbine pulled the triggers. They broke the law not the NRA. I have a concealed handgun license as well. I'm willing to bet that if we were all eating in a resturant and some crazy criminal came through the door with illegally obtained firearms blazing away, you would come over and shake my hand and thank me after I put a bullet between the guys eyes. Criminals are going to get guns if they want them. The only thing that so called "gun-control" does is take them out of the hands of honest citizens. Use your mind a little bit people. (...) I lived in a country that denied its citizens the right to own and carry firearms for three years while in the Navy. Guess what? The criminals still had firearms and were more bold when they decided to rob you because they knew the honest people had no way of defending themselves. Bad guys will always have guns. Protect your right to have guns or face the future empty handed and at the mercy of criminals.
Rating: 
Summary: The movie the right-wing nutcases didn't want you to see
Review: First of all, if Charlton Heston is so helplessly senile (God help the poor man, we mustn't pick on him!), why, when Moore interviewed him, was he still the head spokesman for the NRA...the most powerful political lobbying group in the country? The "mush-for-brains defense" has been used successfully in the past by Reagan's handlers, so the Hestonites just had to recycle it..apparently.
There are a few places where this movie is a little misrepresentative of the technical facts, more just errors of omission on dates, etc., which of course those who fear the message in its entirety claim makes the movie entirely baseless. So if you get two questions out of 100 wrong on a math test, does that mean you fail? Not usually!
My advice to anyone, conservative, liberal, middle-of-the-road, whatever, is just to watch this fascinating film and make up your own mind. Don't let anyone convince you NOT to see it.
Rating:
Summary: Powerful
Review: Don't listen to the 1-starred reviews of this movie. Whether it is 'non fiction' or not, it is great. Funny and sickening, it is sure to make you hate Charlton Heston.
Rating:
Summary: Funniest (pseudo) documentary ever made!
Review: Oh wait, Christopher Guest and This Is Spinal Tap beat Mr. Moore to that 20 years ago. In all seriousness, Bowling For Columbine is a fabrication by a deeply cynical sensationalist trying to push his agenda on the general public. He should have his Oscar revoked. I will be the first to admit that some of the points Mr. Moore makes in the film are interesting, and bear further discussion. But this does not excuse outright forgery. Don't believe me? Go to http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html, the viewer will be STUNNED at the level of deception Mr. Moore resorts to in this propaganda piece (one does not dare call it a documentary; that would imply that Bowling For Columbine is non-fiction). For the record, I'm not specifically right-wing, nor am I a leftist. Just a person who demands that the American media tell the truth for a change, and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum.
Rating: 
Summary: Almost There
Review: Michael Moore angers a ton of people with this slightly self-serving documentary about violence and fear in the United States. Moore uses the most terrible examples of gun violence from the past 5-10 years to show how backwards gun laws really are. Moore tried to answer his question "Why is there so much gun violence and deaths in the US compared to any other country in the world?" He tried to use the normal answers like television, our history, race, poverty, video games, music, etc. What Moore came up with was right on... the media. The media's portrayal of news, interesting stories and things to look out for condition the public to fear everything, everyone everywhere, especially minorities. Although for some parts of the documentary I found myself seeing Michael Moore use the same sort of tactics that nightly news uses, he definitely put together a great piece of art that was Oscar worthy (despite the fact that the extras of him retelling the night exemplified megalomania). Many people are reviewing this movie and focusing on dates, times and details that avoid the point of the film, which apparently must be restated: 1) It is ok for people to own guns within reason: a handgun/shotgun to protect a family/property; a rifle to hunt with. 2) The biggest problem is not the NRA, although their answers to question posed were very Bush-like (fuzzy, avoiding, and illogical), the problem is the way the media reacts and advertises. They try and make people fear the onset of spring and sunsets! NEXT AT 11 -- THE SUN WILL BE COMING UP RED TOMORROW MORNING -- IS THIS ANOTHER TEQUILA SUNRISE OR ARMAGEDDON? also, the bush administration rejects the kyoto protocol, allowing big corporations to pump pollution into the air making sunrises red (if we have time).
Rating:
Summary: screwy film, and it can be proved
Review: It is quite good propaganda filmmaking, I freely admit. But it is highly deceitful. If you don't believe me then check out http://www.spinsanity.org and, no it is not some "whacko attacko" site. The people there are as likely to criticize rightists such as President Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter as they are people like Michael Moore. In fact, spinsanity.org is coming out with a book critical of President Bush in August called "All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media and the Truth". So don't dismiss spinsanity.org, and don't believe what Michael Moore shows or tells you.
Rating:
Summary: Why use two hours to say America's gun approach is bad??
Review: I really wanted to like this film and it's producer. Always considering myself a gun-control advocate, I also had recoiled at the Littleton school shootings. It honestly pains me that I can not give Moore's work a higher rating. Within hours of the event, Littleton represented an unsightly coalition of politics, school safety, and intra-community pluralism debates. Until it hit the affluent Denver suburb, people were content to pretend that school shootings were only something that happened in the inner cities (the enviroment suburbs were theoretically supposed to protect from). Littleton changed everything permanently. I realized the founding fathers inserted the Second Amendment in a time when there was no police and little evidence of goverment balance. In the abscence of supermarkets, guns were also a critical food source, no hunting could translate into no food supply. If they had lived today, the signers would be aghast some people are insisting on the right to purchase AK-47's. They would most likely be with Moore, myself and other peole who believe the right is not absolute and there are reasonable health and safety restrictions which can exist with the Amendment in place. For another perspective, he travels to Canada. Although they do not have a Second Amendment, their streets are so safe the citizens do not lock their doors at night. Not coincidentally, the crime rate is so low that murders are an isolated occurence in that country. They are bewildered that Americans would want the chance to hurt others. My problem with this film is Moore wastes two hours repeating his message. This potentially backfires with his 'alternative' doccumentary style which bluntly delivers the message the first time presented. Moore takes two hours to present information easily delivered in an hour and 30 minutes format. He does not appear to understand that we were already with him during the first time, and it is not how much you say but how you say things which attracts viewers. Films are supposed to educate the audience, not make them look at their watches in a state of desperation. The best film in the world fails to live up to it's potential if key audiences (both the people who originally want to see and those needing to see a film) are detered by the length. Any family scientist or psychologist will tell you drawn out lectures mute their original intentions and may even spark rebellion to spite the original message. Hopefully Moore would not conciously want to turn off potential supporters.
Rating:
Summary: Columbine is the Truth
Review: The reviews written on this movie are obviously a political campaign to discredit it. For starters they all follow the same format, claim you liked the movie in the theatres then tell how appaled you were when you found out about the supposed "truth." Anybody who kows anything about film making can see that the interview with Heston was unedited as it never "cut" from one view to the other. You can look up in newspapers achieves the fact that Heston did say "from my cold dead hands" 10 days after columbine. All the facts of the movie are verifiable from independent sources. You need only look them up on google,nexus, etc. . .
| 
